From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Tue Oct 11 04:52:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id C938D3568E8; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 04:52:50 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ns.nag-j.co.jp (218-42-159-107.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.107]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FF843568CC for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 04:52:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 218-42-159-108.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp ([218.42.159.108] helo=Maru6) by ns.nag-j.co.jp with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1RDSSP-0001OF-Pu for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:52:41 +0900 Message-ID: From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: "WG5" Subject: F08/0038 comments Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:52:43 +0900 Organization: =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCRnxLXBsoQk5BRw==?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-2022-jp"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3538.513 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3538.513 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Bill Long writes: >The text in 13.2.4, on which the subsequent edits depend No they don't. >relies on a poorly defined concept of "reduction". I see no problem with this text. All the edit in F08/0038 does is to remove a potential contradiction. If you don't think something is a reduction, then there wasn't a contradiction there in the first place! >It would also cover the cases that currently would not be considered >"reductions": FINDLOC, MAXLOC, MINLOC, ALL, ANY, PARITY, and THIS_IMAGE. Huh? ALL, ANY and PARITY are all rather obviously reductions, and seeing as how MAXLOC is specifically mentioned in the text in 13.2.4 already clearly FINDLOC, MAXLOC and MINLOC are too. Anyway, 13.2.4 is merely there to explain the reasoning behind DIM and its restrictions, those restrictions actually being stated in every function to which it applies, so there is no need for a fundamental rigorous definition here - we aren't proving any subsequent theorems from it. >COUNT seems to be missing ... an oversight. Not an oversight. Cheers, -- ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.